8 Nov
2024
8 Nov
'24
2:41 a.m.
So as I read your comment, Marc, it seems to me that , e.g., Larry's claims
about bmap, right or wrong, are not germane to this case?
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 8:02 AM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just to repeat, because of a bunch of confused posts
here: The breach of
contract case was not about System V code in Linux. It was about non-AT&T
code from System V derivatives (e.g., AIX, Dynix) into Linux. (The
copyright case was completely different.) You may wonder why non-AT&T code
from a System V derivative into LInux should be a legal issue. To find the
answer you have to read the contract. If it sounds bonkers, then we can
agree that the contract was bonkers.
I don't know how strong the copyright case was. I didn't work on it.
Marc
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 7:13 PM Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024, 6:54 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
--
*My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com <mrochkind(a)gmail.com>*
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 06:35:30PM -0700, Warner
Losh wrote:
4.3bsd wasn't claimed to be a rewrite. 4.4bsd definitely was very
different. I checked before I posted. So what i said is not false. I
literally had the code up side by side 20 minutes ago. It is definitely
different though clearly related and derived a bit. That function is
absolutely not 100% copied.
For the record, I'm a BSD guy, my OS was SunOS 4.x, it was a bug fixed
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 6:09???PM Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
> The thing I never got a reasonable answer to was I found code in BSD
that
> was identical to code going back to at least
V7. Find bmap() in the
UFS
> code and then find the same in V7. I might
be wrong about V7, might
be
> 32V, might be V6. I don't think it
matters, it's the same in all of
them.
bmap() is the code that maps a logical block to a phsyical block,
> I'm quite familiar with it because I rewrote it to bmap_write() and
> bmap_read() as part of making UFS do extents:
>
> http://mcvoy.com/lm/papers/SunOS.ufs_clustering.pdf
>
> When all the lawsuits were going on, since I knew that code really
well,
> I went off and looked and the BSD code at
that time had bit for bit
> identical bmap() implementations.
>
> I never understood why BSD could claim they rewrote everything when
they
> clearly had not rewritten that.
>
> I've raised this question before and I just went and looked, bmap()
has
> changed. I'm pretty sure I have
Kirk's BSD source releases, if I do,
> I'm 100% sure I can back up what I'm saying. Not sure I care enough
to
> do so, it's all water under the bridge
at this point.
>
The short answer is that ffs_bmap.c was one of the 70 files that had
a AT&T copyright notice added to it as part of the AT&T vs Regents
suit.
By the time 4.4BSD had been released, the file
had been substantially
rewritten, but some traces of original AT&T code remained.
Yeah, this is completely a false claim. It was identical. At least
in 4.3 BSD, I can imagine that 4.4 changed it because I was pointing
this out around then.
BSD. If there ever was a guy that wanted this to
be true, it's me.
It's not true, BSD ripped off Bell Labs code, that's a fact.
Except not in 4.4. 4.3 never was claimed to be a rewrite. You needed a
AT&T license, prior to the ancient Unix license to get that. So there was
no claim to originality prior to 4.4. I didn't look at net/2 though.
I'll check after dinner for 4.3bsd and 4.2bsd, but since FFS/UFS is on
disk different than v7fs I don't expect it to be identical.
Warner
>